Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computer Certification > MCDST > NDA Wording

Reply
Thread Tools

NDA Wording

 
 
JaR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2007
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 22:03:00 -0800, Need help on MCP certification test
cast into the ether:

> cannot be inforced.


It is clear that you are not an attorney, nor do you have much grounding
in legal matters. Please cite references for your position other than your
personal opinion.

(It's "enforced")

--
JaR
IANAL, either
Remove hat to reply

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Spyder
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2007
As far as I read I did not see that any one has argued not being able to
"generally" discuss exams. That is the purpose of groups like this, to
"generally" discuss exams and to get help on areas you might be weak on.

As far as your comments about an illegal clause. There is nothing at all
illegal in the Microsoft NDA. Don't you think that Microsoft can afford some
of the best attorney's in the states to make sure that the NDA is legal?

The entire purpose of the NDA is for Microsoft to take the best measures
they can to ensure that no one can cheat and get a certification that they
did not earn and don't know the subject at hand.

In my opinion, if it matters to anyone. You bringing a discussion like this
and argueing these points seems childish. If you don't like the NDA or how
Microsoft handles the exams. Then my advice, join the Apple or Novell crowd
and leave those of us that want to go after the Microsoft certifications be.

As said before, this is only my opinion and may not matter to anyone else,
it just irritates me that you are wanting to argue about the NDA when you are
not forced to agree to it, if it bothers you that much, then don't take the
exams.

MBrooks

"Need help on MCP certification test" wrote:

> Good day:
> That which I have written is addressed to 1. the interpretation of the NDA
> and, 2. the legal principle of not being able to inforce an illegal clause
> contained in a contract.
>
>
> "Cerebrus" wrote:
>
> > On Feb 8, 8:40 am, "John R" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > >
> > > Free speech, or any other right delegated to you by the constitution, does
> > > not cover private contractual obligations. By taking the exam, you agree to
> > > the terms of that exam. That, in essence, is a private agreement between
> > > you and Microsoft. Microsoft certification is not a right granted to you.
> > > Microsoft is not forcing you to take the exam, nor is it forcing you to seek
> > > certification. Your employer might require it of you, but again, nobody is
> > > forcing you to work for your employer either. You are certainly free to go
> > > work at McDonalds and not be required to obtain MCSE.
> > >
> > > The classic discussion to free speech is going into a crowded theater and
> > > yelling "Fire!". You may call it free speech, others call it willfull
> > > endangerment. And while the Microsoft police may not arrest you, they are
> > > certainly free to withhold their certifications from anyone they choose to.
> > > If it is certification at any level that you seek, it is up to you to abide
> > > by it, if for no other reason than personal integrity. I choose to abide by
> > > it because I worked hard at earning it, and I respect others that have done
> > > the same.
> > >
> > > As far as exam times go, it is no secret that you can call a testing center
> > > and see how much time is alloted for an exam. If the exam center closes at
> > > 6pm, they will not allow you to schedule a test appointment for 5:45pm.
> > > Once you have taken an exam or two, you can get a pretty good idea of the
> > > time any particular exam will take. This does not violate anything in the
> > > NDA.
> > >
> > > Discussing technical aspects in general does not violate anything either.
> > > Simply looking at the published objectives should give anyone a pretty good
> > > idea of what to look for in the exam. After all, you are supposed to be
> > > smart enough to understand the objectives if you are looking to take an
> > > exam.
> > >
> > > I don't think Microsoft is trying to "scare" anyone. They simply set the
> > > rules for their certifications, just as motor vehicle departments set the
> > > rules for licensing drivers, and the FAA sets the rules for licensing
> > > pilots, or the FCC sets the rules for licensing broadcasting. If you choose
> > > to not follow the rules, the corresponding agency is free to pull your
> > > license (or certification if you will).
> > >
> > > That's just my take on it.
> > >
> > > John-

> >
> > That was *very* well said, John. A real pleasure to read.
> >
> > ----------
> > Cerebrus.
> > MCNGP #LIV (LIVewire ! Please hug !)
> >
> > Join the fight against Br@indumps
> > http://www.certguard.com/forums/
> >
> >

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Manuel Moore
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2007
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 07:46:01 -0800, Need help on MCP certification test
<(E-Mail Removed) oft.com> wrote:

>Good day:
>That which I have written is addressed to 1. the interpretation of the NDA
>and, 2. the legal principle of not being able to inforce an illegal clause
>contained in a contract.
>
>
>"Cerebrus" wrote:
>
>> On Feb 8, 8:40 am, "John R" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >
>> > Free speech, or any other right delegated to you by the constitution, does
>> > not cover private contractual obligations. By taking the exam, you agree to
>> > the terms of that exam. That, in essence, is a private agreement between
>> > you and Microsoft. Microsoft certification is not a right granted to you.
>> > Microsoft is not forcing you to take the exam, nor is it forcing you to seek
>> > certification. Your employer might require it of you, but again, nobody is
>> > forcing you to work for your employer either. You are certainly free to go
>> > work at McDonalds and not be required to obtain MCSE.
>> >
>> > The classic discussion to free speech is going into a crowded theater and
>> > yelling "Fire!". You may call it free speech, others call it willfull
>> > endangerment. And while the Microsoft police may not arrest you, they are
>> > certainly free to withhold their certifications from anyone they choose to.
>> > If it is certification at any level that you seek, it is up to you to abide
>> > by it, if for no other reason than personal integrity. I choose to abide by
>> > it because I worked hard at earning it, and I respect others that have done
>> > the same.
>> >
>> > As far as exam times go, it is no secret that you can call a testing center
>> > and see how much time is alloted for an exam. If the exam center closes at
>> > 6pm, they will not allow you to schedule a test appointment for 5:45pm.
>> > Once you have taken an exam or two, you can get a pretty good idea of the
>> > time any particular exam will take. This does not violate anything in the
>> > NDA.
>> >
>> > Discussing technical aspects in general does not violate anything either.
>> > Simply looking at the published objectives should give anyone a pretty good
>> > idea of what to look for in the exam. After all, you are supposed to be
>> > smart enough to understand the objectives if you are looking to take an
>> > exam.
>> >
>> > I don't think Microsoft is trying to "scare" anyone. They simply set the
>> > rules for their certifications, just as motor vehicle departments set the
>> > rules for licensing drivers, and the FAA sets the rules for licensing
>> > pilots, or the FCC sets the rules for licensing broadcasting. If you choose
>> > to not follow the rules, the corresponding agency is free to pull your
>> > license (or certification if you will).
>> >
>> > That's just my take on it.
>> >
>> > John-

>>
>> That was *very* well said, John. A real pleasure to read.
>>
>> ----------
>> Cerebrus.
>> MCNGP #LIV (LIVewire ! Please hug !)
>>
>> Join the fight against Br@indumps
>> http://www.certguard.com/forums/
>>
>>

Well, given that I haven't studied law and I took an exam just last
Friday and I did read the NDA, I cannot find any illegal clause in
there.
All that Microsoft wants from you is the very same that any company
would request from you. And that is that you do not talk about
business secrets. In this case the questions you were asked during the
exam.
Microsoft does that so that in the end you can value yourself the work
you have put into getting certified.
And that by itself, having the reward of your work, should be reason
enough to adhere to the NDA.

But that's only my humble opinion

Manuel
 
Reply With Quote
 
Need help on MCP certification test
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2007
Good day:
You may want to consider reading all the posts including the posts that
began the discussion and are shown under the title 70-271 Exam about two
threads removed from this one. You have made my original point which is to
say that the NDA does not prohibit general discussions concerning the exams.
The NDA does seek to prohibit revealing the content of specific questions
that are a part of the exam, and to do so is legal in my opinion.

On the other hand there are some that have attempted to take the position
that the NDA prohibits "discussion" on exam. I have not said that there is
anything illegal in the NDA. However, if one was to reach a wrongful
interpretation, and then seek to inforce the wrongful interpretation in a
court of law, then such a wrongful act would not withstand legal scrutiny.
Bill

"Spyder" wrote:

> As far as I read I did not see that any one has argued not being able to
> "generally" discuss exams. That is the purpose of groups like this, to
> "generally" discuss exams and to get help on areas you might be weak on.
>
> As far as your comments about an illegal clause. There is nothing at all
> illegal in the Microsoft NDA. Don't you think that Microsoft can afford some
> of the best attorney's in the states to make sure that the NDA is legal?
>
> The entire purpose of the NDA is for Microsoft to take the best measures
> they can to ensure that no one can cheat and get a certification that they
> did not earn and don't know the subject at hand.
>
> In my opinion, if it matters to anyone. You bringing a discussion like this
> and argueing these points seems childish. If you don't like the NDA or how
> Microsoft handles the exams. Then my advice, join the Apple or Novell crowd
> and leave those of us that want to go after the Microsoft certifications be.
>
> As said before, this is only my opinion and may not matter to anyone else,
> it just irritates me that you are wanting to argue about the NDA when you are
> not forced to agree to it, if it bothers you that much, then don't take the
> exams.
>
> MBrooks
>
> "Need help on MCP certification test" wrote:
>
> > Good day:
> > That which I have written is addressed to 1. the interpretation of the NDA
> > and, 2. the legal principle of not being able to inforce an illegal clause
> > contained in a contract.
> >
> >
> > "Cerebrus" wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 8, 8:40 am, "John R" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Free speech, or any other right delegated to you by the constitution, does
> > > > not cover private contractual obligations. By taking the exam, you agree to
> > > > the terms of that exam. That, in essence, is a private agreement between
> > > > you and Microsoft. Microsoft certification is not a right granted to you.
> > > > Microsoft is not forcing you to take the exam, nor is it forcing you to seek
> > > > certification. Your employer might require it of you, but again, nobody is
> > > > forcing you to work for your employer either. You are certainly free to go
> > > > work at McDonalds and not be required to obtain MCSE.
> > > >
> > > > The classic discussion to free speech is going into a crowded theater and
> > > > yelling "Fire!". You may call it free speech, others call it willfull
> > > > endangerment. And while the Microsoft police may not arrest you, they are
> > > > certainly free to withhold their certifications from anyone they choose to.
> > > > If it is certification at any level that you seek, it is up to you to abide
> > > > by it, if for no other reason than personal integrity. I choose to abide by
> > > > it because I worked hard at earning it, and I respect others that have done
> > > > the same.
> > > >
> > > > As far as exam times go, it is no secret that you can call a testing center
> > > > and see how much time is alloted for an exam. If the exam center closes at
> > > > 6pm, they will not allow you to schedule a test appointment for 5:45pm.
> > > > Once you have taken an exam or two, you can get a pretty good idea of the
> > > > time any particular exam will take. This does not violate anything in the
> > > > NDA.
> > > >
> > > > Discussing technical aspects in general does not violate anything either.
> > > > Simply looking at the published objectives should give anyone a pretty good
> > > > idea of what to look for in the exam. After all, you are supposed to be
> > > > smart enough to understand the objectives if you are looking to take an
> > > > exam.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think Microsoft is trying to "scare" anyone. They simply set the
> > > > rules for their certifications, just as motor vehicle departments set the
> > > > rules for licensing drivers, and the FAA sets the rules for licensing
> > > > pilots, or the FCC sets the rules for licensing broadcasting. If you choose
> > > > to not follow the rules, the corresponding agency is free to pull your
> > > > license (or certification if you will).
> > > >
> > > > That's just my take on it.
> > > >
> > > > John-
> > >
> > > That was *very* well said, John. A real pleasure to read.
> > >
> > > ----------
> > > Cerebrus.
> > > MCNGP #LIV (LIVewire ! Please hug !)
> > >
> > > Join the fight against Br@indumps
> > > http://www.certguard.com/forums/
> > >
> > >

 
Reply With Quote
 
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2007
I think you need to consult an attorney specializing in these related laws.
It seems clear that you are determined to justify your actions based on this
newsgroup.
Since it appears no one here is a lawyer and you want a legal
interpretation, you have come to the wrong place.
You attempt to disqualify everything that is said opposing what you want to
read and you are failing badly.

The bottom lime is you seem to want an easy way out at the expense of those
who work hard and value their certifications.
At work do you also try to find the easy way out at your employers expense?

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


"Need help on MCP certification test"
<(E-Mail Removed) oft.com> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Good day:
> That which I have written is addressed to 1. the interpretation of the NDA
> and, 2. the legal principle of not being able to inforce an illegal clause
> contained in a contract.
>
>
> "Cerebrus" wrote:
>
>> On Feb 8, 8:40 am, "John R" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >
>> > Free speech, or any other right delegated to you by the constitution,
>> > does
>> > not cover private contractual obligations. By taking the exam, you
>> > agree to
>> > the terms of that exam. That, in essence, is a private agreement
>> > between
>> > you and Microsoft. Microsoft certification is not a right granted to
>> > you.
>> > Microsoft is not forcing you to take the exam, nor is it forcing you to
>> > seek
>> > certification. Your employer might require it of you, but again,
>> > nobody is
>> > forcing you to work for your employer either. You are certainly free
>> > to go
>> > work at McDonalds and not be required to obtain MCSE.
>> >
>> > The classic discussion to free speech is going into a crowded theater
>> > and
>> > yelling "Fire!". You may call it free speech, others call it willfull
>> > endangerment. And while the Microsoft police may not arrest you, they
>> > are
>> > certainly free to withhold their certifications from anyone they choose
>> > to.
>> > If it is certification at any level that you seek, it is up to you to
>> > abide
>> > by it, if for no other reason than personal integrity. I choose to
>> > abide by
>> > it because I worked hard at earning it, and I respect others that have
>> > done
>> > the same.
>> >
>> > As far as exam times go, it is no secret that you can call a testing
>> > center
>> > and see how much time is alloted for an exam. If the exam center
>> > closes at
>> > 6pm, they will not allow you to schedule a test appointment for 5:45pm.
>> > Once you have taken an exam or two, you can get a pretty good idea of
>> > the
>> > time any particular exam will take. This does not violate anything in
>> > the
>> > NDA.
>> >
>> > Discussing technical aspects in general does not violate anything
>> > either.
>> > Simply looking at the published objectives should give anyone a pretty
>> > good
>> > idea of what to look for in the exam. After all, you are supposed to
>> > be
>> > smart enough to understand the objectives if you are looking to take an
>> > exam.
>> >
>> > I don't think Microsoft is trying to "scare" anyone. They simply set
>> > the
>> > rules for their certifications, just as motor vehicle departments set
>> > the
>> > rules for licensing drivers, and the FAA sets the rules for licensing
>> > pilots, or the FCC sets the rules for licensing broadcasting. If you
>> > choose
>> > to not follow the rules, the corresponding agency is free to pull your
>> > license (or certification if you will).
>> >
>> > That's just my take on it.
>> >
>> > John-

>>
>> That was *very* well said, John. A real pleasure to read.
>>
>> ----------
>> Cerebrus.
>> MCNGP #LIV (LIVewire ! Please hug !)
>>
>> Join the fight against Br@indumps
>> http://www.certguard.com/forums/
>>
>>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Michael D. Alligood
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2007
> However, if one was to reach a wrongful
> interpretation, and then seek to inforce the wrongful interpretation in a
> court of law, then such a wrongful act would not withstand legal scrutiny.


It would hold because ignorance is not a defense in the court of law.
That would be the equivalent of someone breaking a "law" and citing that
they did not know it was illegal. They would still be punished. Those of
us who participate in the Microsoft Certification Program know what we
can and cannot divulge. We make every effort to "police" ourselves, our
certified colleagues, and those not aware of the NDA like you were
originally.

Now with that all hashed out, how can we help you?

--
Michael D. Alligood
MCSA, MCDST, MCP, A+,
Network+, i-Net+, CIW Assoc.,
CIW Certified Instructor

http://yetanotherblog.typepad.com/theclassroom



"Need help on MCP certification test"
<(E-Mail Removed) oft.com> wrote in
message news:(E-Mail Removed):

> Good day:
> You may want to consider reading all the posts including the posts that
> began the discussion and are shown under the title 70-271 Exam about two
> threads removed from this one. You have made my original point which is to
> say that the NDA does not prohibit general discussions concerning the exams.
> The NDA does seek to prohibit revealing the content of specific questions
> that are a part of the exam, and to do so is legal in my opinion.
>
> On the other hand there are some that have attempted to take the position
> that the NDA prohibits "discussion" on exam. I have not said that there is
> anything illegal in the NDA. However, if one was to reach a wrongful
> interpretation, and then seek to inforce the wrongful interpretation in a
> court of law, then such a wrongful act would not withstand legal scrutiny.
> Bill
>
> "Spyder" wrote:
>
> > As far as I read I did not see that any one has argued not being able to
> > "generally" discuss exams. That is the purpose of groups like this, to
> > "generally" discuss exams and to get help on areas you might be weak on.
> >
> > As far as your comments about an illegal clause. There is nothing at all
> > illegal in the Microsoft NDA. Don't you think that Microsoft can afford some
> > of the best attorney's in the states to make sure that the NDA is legal?
> >
> > The entire purpose of the NDA is for Microsoft to take the best measures
> > they can to ensure that no one can cheat and get a certification that they
> > did not earn and don't know the subject at hand.
> >
> > In my opinion, if it matters to anyone. You bringing a discussion like this
> > and argueing these points seems childish. If you don't like the NDA or how
> > Microsoft handles the exams. Then my advice, join the Apple or Novell crowd
> > and leave those of us that want to go after the Microsoft certifications be.
> >
> > As said before, this is only my opinion and may not matter to anyone else,
> > it just irritates me that you are wanting to argue about the NDA when you are
> > not forced to agree to it, if it bothers you that much, then don't take the
> > exams.
> >
> > MBrooks
> >
> > "Need help on MCP certification test" wrote:
> >
> > > Good day:
> > > That which I have written is addressed to 1. the interpretation of the NDA
> > > and, 2. the legal principle of not being able to inforce an illegal clause
> > > contained in a contract.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Cerebrus" wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Feb 8, 8:40 am, "John R" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Free speech, or any other right delegated to you by the constitution, does
> > > > > not cover private contractual obligations. By taking the exam, you agree to
> > > > > the terms of that exam. That, in essence, is a private agreement between
> > > > > you and Microsoft. Microsoft certification is not a right granted to you.
> > > > > Microsoft is not forcing you to take the exam, nor is it forcing you to seek
> > > > > certification. Your employer might require it of you, but again, nobody is
> > > > > forcing you to work for your employer either. You are certainly free to go
> > > > > work at McDonalds and not be required to obtain MCSE.
> > > > >
> > > > > The classic discussion to free speech is going into a crowded theater and
> > > > > yelling "Fire!". You may call it free speech, others call it willfull
> > > > > endangerment. And while the Microsoft police may not arrest you, they are
> > > > > certainly free to withhold their certifications from anyone they choose to.
> > > > > If it is certification at any level that you seek, it is up to you to abide
> > > > > by it, if for no other reason than personal integrity. I choose to abide by
> > > > > it because I worked hard at earning it, and I respect others that have done
> > > > > the same.
> > > > >
> > > > > As far as exam times go, it is no secret that you can call a testing center
> > > > > and see how much time is alloted for an exam. If the exam center closes at
> > > > > 6pm, they will not allow you to schedule a test appointment for 5:45pm.
> > > > > Once you have taken an exam or two, you can get a pretty good idea of the
> > > > > time any particular exam will take. This does not violate anything in the
> > > > > NDA.
> > > > >
> > > > > Discussing technical aspects in general does not violate anything either.
> > > > > Simply looking at the published objectives should give anyone a pretty good
> > > > > idea of what to look for in the exam. After all, you are supposed to be
> > > > > smart enough to understand the objectives if you are looking to take an
> > > > > exam.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think Microsoft is trying to "scare" anyone. They simply set the
> > > > > rules for their certifications, just as motor vehicle departments set the
> > > > > rules for licensing drivers, and the FAA sets the rules for licensing
> > > > > pilots, or the FCC sets the rules for licensing broadcasting. If you choose
> > > > > to not follow the rules, the corresponding agency is free to pull your
> > > > > license (or certification if you will).
> > > > >
> > > > > That's just my take on it.
> > > > >
> > > > > John-
> > > >
> > > > That was *very* well said, John. A real pleasure to read.
> > > >
> > > > ----------
> > > > Cerebrus.
> > > > MCNGP #LIV (LIVewire ! Please hug !)
> > > >
> > > > Join the fight against Br@indumps
> > > > http://www.certguard.com/forums/
> > > >
> > > >


 
Reply With Quote
 
Michael D. Alligood
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2007
Legality aside; if Microsoft finds you in the wrong concerning the
"agreement" you adhered to in order to take your exam, you can be
decertified and barred from future certifications. I have seen this
first hand while employed with a Computer Learning Center.

--
Michael D. Alligood
MCSA, MCDST, MCP, A+,
Network+, i-Net+, CIW Assoc.,
CIW Certified Instructor

http://yetanotherblog.typepad.com/theclassroom



"Manuel Moore" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 07:46:01 -0800, Need help on MCP certification test
> <(E-Mail Removed) oft.com> wrote:
>
> >Good day:
> >That which I have written is addressed to 1. the interpretation of the NDA
> >and, 2. the legal principle of not being able to inforce an illegal clause
> >contained in a contract.
> >
> >
> >"Cerebrus" wrote:
> >
> >> On Feb 8, 8:40 am, "John R" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Free speech, or any other right delegated to you by the constitution, does
> >> > not cover private contractual obligations. By taking the exam, you agree to
> >> > the terms of that exam. That, in essence, is a private agreement between
> >> > you and Microsoft. Microsoft certification is not a right granted to you.
> >> > Microsoft is not forcing you to take the exam, nor is it forcing you to seek
> >> > certification. Your employer might require it of you, but again, nobody is
> >> > forcing you to work for your employer either. You are certainly free to go
> >> > work at McDonalds and not be required to obtain MCSE.
> >> >
> >> > The classic discussion to free speech is going into a crowded theater and
> >> > yelling "Fire!". You may call it free speech, others call it willfull
> >> > endangerment. And while the Microsoft police may not arrest you, they are
> >> > certainly free to withhold their certifications from anyone they choose to.
> >> > If it is certification at any level that you seek, it is up to you to abide
> >> > by it, if for no other reason than personal integrity. I choose to abide by
> >> > it because I worked hard at earning it, and I respect others that have done
> >> > the same.
> >> >
> >> > As far as exam times go, it is no secret that you can call a testing center
> >> > and see how much time is alloted for an exam. If the exam center closes at
> >> > 6pm, they will not allow you to schedule a test appointment for 5:45pm.
> >> > Once you have taken an exam or two, you can get a pretty good idea of the
> >> > time any particular exam will take. This does not violate anything in the
> >> > NDA.
> >> >
> >> > Discussing technical aspects in general does not violate anything either.
> >> > Simply looking at the published objectives should give anyone a pretty good
> >> > idea of what to look for in the exam. After all, you are supposed to be
> >> > smart enough to understand the objectives if you are looking to take an
> >> > exam.
> >> >
> >> > I don't think Microsoft is trying to "scare" anyone. They simply set the
> >> > rules for their certifications, just as motor vehicle departments set the
> >> > rules for licensing drivers, and the FAA sets the rules for licensing
> >> > pilots, or the FCC sets the rules for licensing broadcasting. If you choose
> >> > to not follow the rules, the corresponding agency is free to pull your
> >> > license (or certification if you will).
> >> >
> >> > That's just my take on it.
> >> >
> >> > John-
> >>
> >> That was *very* well said, John. A real pleasure to read.
> >>
> >> ----------
> >> Cerebrus.
> >> MCNGP #LIV (LIVewire ! Please hug !)
> >>
> >> Join the fight against Br@indumps
> >> http://www.certguard.com/forums/
> >>
> >>

> Well, given that I haven't studied law and I took an exam just last
> Friday and I did read the NDA, I cannot find any illegal clause in
> there.
> All that Microsoft wants from you is the very same that any company
> would request from you. And that is that you do not talk about
> business secrets. In this case the questions you were asked during the
> exam.
> Microsoft does that so that in the end you can value yourself the work
> you have put into getting certified.
> And that by itself, having the reward of your work, should be reason
> enough to adhere to the NDA.
>
> But that's only my humble opinion
>
> Manuel


 
Reply With Quote
 
Michael D. Alligood
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2007
Jupiter! I have never seen you in these parts of the newsgroup world!
Normally you are hanging out in Windows XP newsgroups. Did the NDA
conversation spike your curiosity?

--
Michael D. Alligood
MCSA, MCDST, MCP, A+,
Network+, i-Net+, CIW Assoc.,
CIW Certified Instructor

http://yetanotherblog.typepad.com/theclassroom



"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:u#(E-Mail Removed):

> I think you need to consult an attorney specializing in these related laws.
> It seems clear that you are determined to justify your actions based on this
> newsgroup.
> Since it appears no one here is a lawyer and you want a legal
> interpretation, you have come to the wrong place.
> You attempt to disqualify everything that is said opposing what you want to
> read and you are failing badly.
>
> The bottom lime is you seem to want an easy way out at the expense of those
> who work hard and value their certifications.
> At work do you also try to find the easy way out at your employers expense?
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
> http://www.dts-l.org
>
>
> "Need help on MCP certification test"
> <(E-Mail Removed) oft.com> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Good day:
> > That which I have written is addressed to 1. the interpretation of the NDA
> > and, 2. the legal principle of not being able to inforce an illegal clause
> > contained in a contract.
> >
> >
> > "Cerebrus" wrote:
> >
> >> On Feb 8, 8:40 am, "John R" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Free speech, or any other right delegated to you by the constitution,
> >> > does
> >> > not cover private contractual obligations. By taking the exam, you
> >> > agree to
> >> > the terms of that exam. That, in essence, is a private agreement
> >> > between
> >> > you and Microsoft. Microsoft certification is not a right granted to
> >> > you.
> >> > Microsoft is not forcing you to take the exam, nor is it forcing you to
> >> > seek
> >> > certification. Your employer might require it of you, but again,
> >> > nobody is
> >> > forcing you to work for your employer either. You are certainly free
> >> > to go
> >> > work at McDonalds and not be required to obtain MCSE.
> >> >
> >> > The classic discussion to free speech is going into a crowded theater
> >> > and
> >> > yelling "Fire!". You may call it free speech, others call it willfull
> >> > endangerment. And while the Microsoft police may not arrest you, they
> >> > are
> >> > certainly free to withhold their certifications from anyone they choose
> >> > to.
> >> > If it is certification at any level that you seek, it is up to you to
> >> > abide
> >> > by it, if for no other reason than personal integrity. I choose to
> >> > abide by
> >> > it because I worked hard at earning it, and I respect others that have
> >> > done
> >> > the same.
> >> >
> >> > As far as exam times go, it is no secret that you can call a testing
> >> > center
> >> > and see how much time is alloted for an exam. If the exam center
> >> > closes at
> >> > 6pm, they will not allow you to schedule a test appointment for 5:45pm.
> >> > Once you have taken an exam or two, you can get a pretty good idea of
> >> > the
> >> > time any particular exam will take. This does not violate anything in
> >> > the
> >> > NDA.
> >> >
> >> > Discussing technical aspects in general does not violate anything
> >> > either.
> >> > Simply looking at the published objectives should give anyone a pretty
> >> > good
> >> > idea of what to look for in the exam. After all, you are supposed to
> >> > be
> >> > smart enough to understand the objectives if you are looking to take an
> >> > exam.
> >> >
> >> > I don't think Microsoft is trying to "scare" anyone. They simply set
> >> > the
> >> > rules for their certifications, just as motor vehicle departments set
> >> > the
> >> > rules for licensing drivers, and the FAA sets the rules for licensing
> >> > pilots, or the FCC sets the rules for licensing broadcasting. If you
> >> > choose
> >> > to not follow the rules, the corresponding agency is free to pull your
> >> > license (or certification if you will).
> >> >
> >> > That's just my take on it.
> >> >
> >> > John-
> >>
> >> That was *very* well said, John. A real pleasure to read.
> >>
> >> ----------
> >> Cerebrus.
> >> MCNGP #LIV (LIVewire ! Please hug !)
> >>
> >> Join the fight against Br@indumps
> >> http://www.certguard.com/forums/
> >>
> >>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Need help on MCP certification test
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2007
Michael, the examlple you have given does not address the specific point I
made. If your example were applied to the subject at hand then you would be
making the case that Microsoft was ignorant of the law. I think we can agree
that Microsoft is not ignorant of the law.

"Michael D. Alligood" wrote:

> > However, if one was to reach a wrongful
> > interpretation, and then seek to inforce the wrongful interpretation in a
> > court of law, then such a wrongful act would not withstand legal scrutiny.

>
> It would hold because ignorance is not a defense in the court of law.
> That would be the equivalent of someone breaking a "law" and citing that
> they did not know it was illegal. They would still be punished. Those of
> us who participate in the Microsoft Certification Program know what we
> can and cannot divulge. We make every effort to "police" ourselves, our
> certified colleagues, and those not aware of the NDA like you were
> originally.
>
> Now with that all hashed out, how can we help you?
>
> --
> Michael D. Alligood
> MCSA, MCDST, MCP, A+,
> Network+, i-Net+, CIW Assoc.,
> CIW Certified Instructor
>
> http://yetanotherblog.typepad.com/theclassroom
>
>
>
> "Need help on MCP certification test"
> <(E-Mail Removed) oft.com> wrote in
> message news:(E-Mail Removed):
>
> > Good day:
> > You may want to consider reading all the posts including the posts that
> > began the discussion and are shown under the title 70-271 Exam about two
> > threads removed from this one. You have made my original point which is to
> > say that the NDA does not prohibit general discussions concerning the exams.
> > The NDA does seek to prohibit revealing the content of specific questions
> > that are a part of the exam, and to do so is legal in my opinion.
> >
> > On the other hand there are some that have attempted to take the position
> > that the NDA prohibits "discussion" on exam. I have not said that there is
> > anything illegal in the NDA. However, if one was to reach a wrongful
> > interpretation, and then seek to inforce the wrongful interpretation in a
> > court of law, then such a wrongful act would not withstand legal scrutiny.
> > Bill
> >
> > "Spyder" wrote:
> >
> > > As far as I read I did not see that any one has argued not being able to
> > > "generally" discuss exams. That is the purpose of groups like this, to
> > > "generally" discuss exams and to get help on areas you might be weak on.
> > >
> > > As far as your comments about an illegal clause. There is nothing at all
> > > illegal in the Microsoft NDA. Don't you think that Microsoft can afford some
> > > of the best attorney's in the states to make sure that the NDA is legal?
> > >
> > > The entire purpose of the NDA is for Microsoft to take the best measures
> > > they can to ensure that no one can cheat and get a certification that they
> > > did not earn and don't know the subject at hand.
> > >
> > > In my opinion, if it matters to anyone. You bringing a discussion like this
> > > and argueing these points seems childish. If you don't like the NDA or how
> > > Microsoft handles the exams. Then my advice, join the Apple or Novell crowd
> > > and leave those of us that want to go after the Microsoft certifications be.
> > >
> > > As said before, this is only my opinion and may not matter to anyone else,
> > > it just irritates me that you are wanting to argue about the NDA when you are
> > > not forced to agree to it, if it bothers you that much, then don't take the
> > > exams.
> > >
> > > MBrooks
> > >
> > > "Need help on MCP certification test" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Good day:
> > > > That which I have written is addressed to 1. the interpretation of the NDA
> > > > and, 2. the legal principle of not being able to inforce an illegal clause
> > > > contained in a contract.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Cerebrus" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Feb 8, 8:40 am, "John R" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Free speech, or any other right delegated to you by the constitution, does
> > > > > > not cover private contractual obligations. By taking the exam, you agree to
> > > > > > the terms of that exam. That, in essence, is a private agreement between
> > > > > > you and Microsoft. Microsoft certification is not a right granted to you.
> > > > > > Microsoft is not forcing you to take the exam, nor is it forcing you to seek
> > > > > > certification. Your employer might require it of you, but again, nobody is
> > > > > > forcing you to work for your employer either. You are certainly free to go
> > > > > > work at McDonalds and not be required to obtain MCSE.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The classic discussion to free speech is going into a crowded theater and
> > > > > > yelling "Fire!". You may call it free speech, others call it willfull
> > > > > > endangerment. And while the Microsoft police may not arrest you, they are
> > > > > > certainly free to withhold their certifications from anyone they choose to.
> > > > > > If it is certification at any level that you seek, it is up to you to abide
> > > > > > by it, if for no other reason than personal integrity. I choose to abide by
> > > > > > it because I worked hard at earning it, and I respect others that have done
> > > > > > the same.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As far as exam times go, it is no secret that you can call a testing center
> > > > > > and see how much time is alloted for an exam. If the exam center closes at
> > > > > > 6pm, they will not allow you to schedule a test appointment for 5:45pm.
> > > > > > Once you have taken an exam or two, you can get a pretty good idea of the
> > > > > > time any particular exam will take. This does not violate anything in the
> > > > > > NDA.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Discussing technical aspects in general does not violate anything either.
> > > > > > Simply looking at the published objectives should give anyone a pretty good
> > > > > > idea of what to look for in the exam. After all, you are supposed to be
> > > > > > smart enough to understand the objectives if you are looking to take an
> > > > > > exam.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think Microsoft is trying to "scare" anyone. They simply set the
> > > > > > rules for their certifications, just as motor vehicle departments set the
> > > > > > rules for licensing drivers, and the FAA sets the rules for licensing
> > > > > > pilots, or the FCC sets the rules for licensing broadcasting. If you choose
> > > > > > to not follow the rules, the corresponding agency is free to pull your
> > > > > > license (or certification if you will).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's just my take on it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John-
> > > > >
> > > > > That was *very* well said, John. A real pleasure to read.
> > > > >
> > > > > ----------
> > > > > Cerebrus.
> > > > > MCNGP #LIV (LIVewire ! Please hug !)
> > > > >
> > > > > Join the fight against Br@indumps
> > > > > http://www.certguard.com/forums/
> > > > >
> > > > >

>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Need help on MCP certification test
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2007
Good day:
I haven't taken any actions, nor have I attempted to justify anything.
Simply stated, this thread began as a result of one person attempting to use
a faulty interpretation of the NDA and then applying the faulty
interpretation in a sweeping manner to prohibit all discussion, including
general discussion, of Microsoft exams. Bill

"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" wrote:

> I think you need to consult an attorney specializing in these related laws.
> It seems clear that you are determined to justify your actions based on this
> newsgroup.
> Since it appears no one here is a lawyer and you want a legal
> interpretation, you have come to the wrong place.
> You attempt to disqualify everything that is said opposing what you want to
> read and you are failing badly.
>
> The bottom lime is you seem to want an easy way out at the expense of those
> who work hard and value their certifications.
> At work do you also try to find the easy way out at your employers expense?
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
> http://www.dts-l.org
>
>
> "Need help on MCP certification test"
> <(E-Mail Removed) oft.com> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Good day:
> > That which I have written is addressed to 1. the interpretation of the NDA
> > and, 2. the legal principle of not being able to inforce an illegal clause
> > contained in a contract.
> >
> >
> > "Cerebrus" wrote:
> >
> >> On Feb 8, 8:40 am, "John R" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Free speech, or any other right delegated to you by the constitution,
> >> > does
> >> > not cover private contractual obligations. By taking the exam, you
> >> > agree to
> >> > the terms of that exam. That, in essence, is a private agreement
> >> > between
> >> > you and Microsoft. Microsoft certification is not a right granted to
> >> > you.
> >> > Microsoft is not forcing you to take the exam, nor is it forcing you to
> >> > seek
> >> > certification. Your employer might require it of you, but again,
> >> > nobody is
> >> > forcing you to work for your employer either. You are certainly free
> >> > to go
> >> > work at McDonalds and not be required to obtain MCSE.
> >> >
> >> > The classic discussion to free speech is going into a crowded theater
> >> > and
> >> > yelling "Fire!". You may call it free speech, others call it willfull
> >> > endangerment. And while the Microsoft police may not arrest you, they
> >> > are
> >> > certainly free to withhold their certifications from anyone they choose
> >> > to.
> >> > If it is certification at any level that you seek, it is up to you to
> >> > abide
> >> > by it, if for no other reason than personal integrity. I choose to
> >> > abide by
> >> > it because I worked hard at earning it, and I respect others that have
> >> > done
> >> > the same.
> >> >
> >> > As far as exam times go, it is no secret that you can call a testing
> >> > center
> >> > and see how much time is alloted for an exam. If the exam center
> >> > closes at
> >> > 6pm, they will not allow you to schedule a test appointment for 5:45pm.
> >> > Once you have taken an exam or two, you can get a pretty good idea of
> >> > the
> >> > time any particular exam will take. This does not violate anything in
> >> > the
> >> > NDA.
> >> >
> >> > Discussing technical aspects in general does not violate anything
> >> > either.
> >> > Simply looking at the published objectives should give anyone a pretty
> >> > good
> >> > idea of what to look for in the exam. After all, you are supposed to
> >> > be
> >> > smart enough to understand the objectives if you are looking to take an
> >> > exam.
> >> >
> >> > I don't think Microsoft is trying to "scare" anyone. They simply set
> >> > the
> >> > rules for their certifications, just as motor vehicle departments set
> >> > the
> >> > rules for licensing drivers, and the FAA sets the rules for licensing
> >> > pilots, or the FCC sets the rules for licensing broadcasting. If you
> >> > choose
> >> > to not follow the rules, the corresponding agency is free to pull your
> >> > license (or certification if you will).
> >> >
> >> > That's just my take on it.
> >> >
> >> > John-
> >>
> >> That was *very* well said, John. A real pleasure to read.
> >>
> >> ----------
> >> Cerebrus.
> >> MCNGP #LIV (LIVewire ! Please hug !)
> >>
> >> Join the fight against Br@indumps
> >> http://www.certguard.com/forums/
> >>
> >>

>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wording suggestion for documentation (Data Model) Jason R. Coombs Python 0 06-13-2008 12:16 AM
Question on Wording Paulo Jorge de O. C. de Matos C Programming 8 05-05-2008 04:10 AM
clinic 2263 - wording ? Which is right ? - Bobb - MCDST 5 12-13-2005 05:14 AM
Accelerated C++: Clarification on the wording of exercises Frankie Montenegro C++ 3 10-14-2005 04:21 PM
Question on wording Kayla Digital Photography 11 07-19-2005 12:48 AM



Advertisments